I’ve had this paper open for weeks now. Slogging through bits. Finally got to where I think I know what matters in it.

It suggests that there is an ocean regulation of CO2 levels and clearly has bought into the notion that CO2 controls temperatures, as it asserts that there is a tipping point, but to the cold side, when CO2 “sequestration” into the deep ocean increases. My initial thought was that the idea of a ‘tipping point, but to colder’ would be best for an article. I still think there is a bit of PR Value in that, as they assert that the formation of Northern Hemisphere Ice Sheets is due to the change of CO2 sequestration. But as I’m convinced that convection dominates, not CO2, to then tout a tipping point to cold based on CO2 conflicts with my sense of propriety.

But I still kept pondering… I think the key bit is simply that they find changes in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current with temperature, and that change of current changes the rate of overturning of the deep ocean waters. This is a control point on the CO2 outgassing of the ocean. It says, in essence, CO2 levels in the air change based on ocean currents. If they have in the past, we ought to expect it today, too. If when it is colder we have more sequestration, then during warm times ought their not be more outgassing?

Basically, it shows the mechanism by which temperature modulates CO2 via the ocean.

Chapter 2 demonstrated that with the global cooling trend of the Late Neogene came dramatic changes in the circulation of the abyssal Southern Ocean that may have amplified global cooling and helped to establish Northern Hemisphere ice sheets. The Antarctic Divergence, the southern boundary of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC), provides the main pathway through which waters deeper than 2500 m are exposed to the atmosphere. Thus, once the Antarctic cryosphere reached a stage in the late Pliocene whereby sea ice expansion and water mass stratification began to inhibit Southern Ocean ventilation, CO2 sequestration within the abyssal Southern Ocean was able to drive continued global climatic cooling through a positive feedback cycle.

Not only can the Drake Passage modulate water flow, and cold injection, into the Pacific (by sending excess flow up the coast of South America) but atmospheric CO2 as well.

That leaves even less for that CO2 as causal argument and puts even more on the scale on the side of natural oscillations of ocean currents. Basically, while I think they have the ‘CO2 as causal’ for warming wrong; they do show that CO2 modulates with warming and cooling via ocean turnover changes.

They do find some limits to when. They claim that it only happens under a more extreme range of climate when Antarctic Ice Sheets have grown large. But if that is so, then why do we want more Antarctic ice these days? ..

Until the Antarctic cryosphere reached this advanced stage in late Pliocene, however, the build-up of ice on Antarctica did not have an effect on the vertical or interbasinal δ13C or δ18O gradients in the Southern Ocean. Despite the growth of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet in the late Miocene, the water column in both the Atlantic and Pacific sectors of the Southern Ocean remained well-mixed, well-ventilated, and of uniform temperature until the expansion of sea ice in the late Pliocene

Basically they have demonstrated a potential tipping point, but only to the downside and to cold, based on TOO LITTLE CO2 and more Antarctic Ice. Exactly the two things the Warmistas want. Which leaves me wondering all the more why they want them…

Update – yes, just 24 minutes after posting

CO2 vs time, trees, and plagues

I ran into this chart on a page discussing various catastrophes of the past, environmentally speaking.

It largely casts the story in the light of CO2 as climate causal, and attempts to assert that when there were human die-offs, that let the forests grow and sequester CO2, leading to cold.

Their major point being that long term deforestation is letting CO2 levels rise (a point I’ve made before, though the other way around, that letting trees grow would drop levels rapidly).

But what caught my eye the most about the graph is just how much CO2 levels Have Changed Historically. Where were the SUVs and jet airplanes in 1700 during that dramatic rise? How about in 600 AD? It simply says that there are fairly large swings of CO2 based on things unrelated to fossil fuels.

46 Responses to Ocean Currents Control CO2

This is all such nonsense: If you assume the atmosphere is an equilibrium system until evil men came along to upset the balance with more CO2 then you must accept that increased CO2 would have a cooling effect it is a poor absorber of IR energy from sunlight where water vapor is better absorber by a factor of seven.

Where water vapor is the only gas that can precipitate at the ambient temperature, then increasing CO2 causes precipitation, reducing the amount of water vapor thereby and the capture of IR heating energy.

I posted a link fairly recently to a paper about anthropogenic changes in the Americas by native populations before Europeans arrived. One of the changes was the deforestation of the Eastern plains on North America (thought it also mentions maintenance of savannah by burning in South America, too) and how by the early 1800’s most of the area had become forested again. I think I posted it in one of the open threads, but I’m not sure now.

I ran across a paper yesterday that was also talking about the deforestation of what is now Northern Iraq, Syria, and Southern Turkey. By the end of the Bronze Age, a good portion of that region which had been oak woodland was reduced to scrub based on pollen counts in various varve samples.

Afghanistan is another place that was nearly completely deforested. During the years of civil strife, the trees were often the only fuel people could obtain to heat their homes and in many cases stripped groves of Pistachio that had been growing for centuries. There have been some attempts at reforestation but I haven’t kept up on it.

Well, one point the author makes in that dissertation (and it is quite long and in several parts, I thought I finished it once and realized I had only reached the end of one part!) is that during glacial periods a good bit of the South Pacific abyssal circulation can go stagnant. The water can literally just sit there for thousands of years. It tends to accumulate CO2 when that happens and that CO2 is not ventilated to the atmosphere. Also, as ice covers more of the Southern Ocean and North polar region, more of the it shuts down a lot of mixing that happens in those areas, too.

CO2 follows temperature, not the other way. Open a coke and you´ll see it: The more you have it in your warm hand the more gas will go out when you open it.
CO2 is the transparent gas we all exhale (SOOT is black=Carbon dust) and plants breath with delight, to give us back what they exhale instead= Oxygen we breath in.
CO2 is a TRACE GAS in the atmosphere, it is the 0.038% of it.
CO2 is a gas essential to life. All carbohydrates are made of it. The sugar you eat, the bread you have eaten in your breakfast this morning, even the jeans you wear (these are made from 100% cotton, a polymer of glucose, made of CO2..you didn´t know it, did you?)
You and I, we are made of CARBON and WATER.
CO2 is heavier than Air, so it cannot go up, up and away to cover the earth.
The atmosphere, the air cannot hold heat, its volumetric heat capacity, per cubic cemtimeter is 0.00192 joules, while water is 4.186, i.e., 3227 times.
This is the reason why people used hot water bottles to warm their feet and not hot air bottles.
If global warmers were to succeed in achieving their SUPPOSED goal of lowering CO2 level to nothing, life would disappear from the face of the earth: If no CO2 NO YOU!

…intransigence, uncritical loyalty to authorities and tendentious or fashionable modes of reasoning – such as a blind belief in unfettered mathematical derivation – are three types of ‘tradition’-forming behaviour that are rife in the world of professional researchers. New ideas are resisted as much as welcomed – and for the wrong reasons. In excessive cases, such as the ‘Big Bang’ theory of the origin of the cosmos or the reliability of radioactive dating methods, scientific tradition has become so ingrained that the academic community acts in a manner more characteristic of a political or a religious group than a scientific one.

o/t kinda –
CO2 is also about aerobic and anerobic lifeforms. When things get out of balance, like when the temperature goes up or down for some reason, CO2 is rise and fall depending on the mix (and change) of aerobic and anerobic lifeforms taking advantage (or not) of the presence (or absence) of CO2. There’s another way of looking at CO2 too. When CO2 goes up there’s too much of something that likes O2 and not enough of something else that likes CO2, of course, the opposite is also true. Now what I’m about to say doesn’t necessarily follow anything at all, but here goes, green plants need CO2, lots of it. We need green plants, lots of them. If CO2 is rising and there’s no one to blame but us, it has to be that we aren’t growing and eating our veggies. And that’s bad. Bush One probably made things a lot more worse in the CO2 department when he came out saying he didn’t like broccoli. When kids hear The President say that what’s a mother to do? Blame Bush One, he really made things a lot worse in the CO2 department.

Adolfo, I mostly agree with you, however, fossil fuel combustion creates CO2 and this contributes to its atmospheric concentration, along with volcanoes, deforrestation, outgassing from seas, etc. Even though CO2 is heavier than air, mixing and gas diffusion will eventually lead to it reaching the upper atmosphere.

The atmospheric concentration of CO2 is over 390 ppm now in most places. It would be nice for warmers to state what level of CO2 they want to achieve. It would appear to be < 350 ppm, but they don't say "zero."

It is true that some give the impression that CO2 it evil when as you point out it is fundamental to life.

R de Haan,
The IPCC’s cuckoo idea that CO2 is driving climate change is finally getting the scorn it deserves from scientists. However, it makes one wonder why so many scientists stood idly by when the CO2 bandwagon started to roll.

If you listen to the entire recording of the hearing you will find Canadian senators hell bent on following the IPCC’s recommendations.

One of them expounded the “Precautionary Principle” which only makes sense if you are spending other people’s money.

I wonder what proportion of atmospheric moisture content is provided by trees in comparison to the oceans. Though I would guess it’s more of a micro climate thing than anything that could have Global effects.

The global warmers don’t have to get co2 down to zero to wipe out all life on planet earth, 150ppm would do it and we got down to 180ppm in the last glaciation. It would be nice to know if the global warmers are even aware of these two figures. My guess is they’re not, as trying to work out what the time of day is probably takes up all their time.

@J Martin –
They are also of the very strange opinion that one size fits all, the bestest climate of 2055 is the same as the bestest climate of 1950, 1900, 1850, etc., that one level is good for all periods of geo-climate time and everything is just soooooo simple. No, this is a political movement, not a scientific one; they are out to build Utopia in their own image, come hell and high water, or glaciers and desertification. The thing that gets me so mad is the way they think it makes so much common sense to have the UN in charge of everything, that thought drives me crazy. I refuse to believe that anyone in this day and age can be so bloody stupid, but there they are, for all to see. It just doesn’t make sense. If it isn’t the floride and chlorine in the water supply, it must be the beetle shells and seaweed they grind up and put in the bologna and peanut butter. Right?

@Pascvaks: All that Global Warmers want (the real ones, not the scientist-fools-servants)is to take money out from our pockets, that money which we get through hard working and they collect just by wishing and doing some magic. (You know them. The worshipers of the Golden Calf).

2009 saw a real absolute global reduction in energy consumption. We saw absolutely zero corresponding drop or even change in the growth of CO2 content at Mauna Loa. Not even a wiggle. A 1.1% drop in total energy consumption had absolutely no discernible impact whatsoever.

That is empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are not a significant cause of global atmospheric CO2 increase. If these emissions were a significant contributor, we would have seen a significant change in the rate of growth of CO2. We didn’t. And I want to stress that — not only was there no growth in human emissions in 2009, there was a drop of 1.1% and there was no change in the growth of atmospheric CO2.

The reason for that is that at most human emissions are about 5% of the total carbon going into the atmosphere. A 1.1% drop is 1% of 5% or a reduction of 0.05% or 5 ten-thousandths of the CO2. Not enough to notice. That CO2 continued to rise says that growth of fossil fuel consumption is not only an insignificant portion of the emissions themselves, it is a negligible component of the rise in atmospheric CO2. It’s coming from someplace else and that someplace else is increasing the amount of CO2 it is dumping into the atmosphere year on year.

I’ll tell you where I believe it is coming from: continued recovery of ocean temperatures from the LIA. It was cold for about 500 years. It has been warm for less than 100. It takes a lot longer to warm the oceans than it takes to cool them.

The year on year increase in atmospheric CO2 emissions is not caused by human emissions increases. Human emission increases are so small as to not even be noticed.

Well, unless they were on the docket just to be ignored, it looks like perhaps some backpedaling by the politicians is being ‘set up’. The parties involved can just say “Well, those darned scientists are now telling us THEY had it wrong” and then back away from prior warming postures.

I especially liked the one from Prof. Tim Patterson where he stresses how fast the field is evolving at that if we only new then what we know now there would not have been a Koyoto Protocol… Somehow I think Canada has seen the cold reality coming at them and is not going to stay worried about heat… at least, not too much of it…

BTW, the ice roads leaves me wondering if there are records of first and last day of operation laying around somewhere… Yet another hard to erase bit of historical evidence…

@GallopingCamel:

It is useful to note when “key words” have been given special meaning by the Progressives. They push those words repeatedly and often with a somewhat “bent” meaning. Once you spot the propaganda words, they become a pretty good indicator of a Progressive Agenda Advocate (or the occasional stooge). Ordinary folks may pick up one or two, or use them a bit; but someone with a high word count and frequent reuse is pretty much attending the talking point meetings and part of the “push”. For me, one of those is advocacy for “The precautionary principle”. It’s a red flag for an Agenda 21 devotee. They are driven by The Agenda and anything that would not advance that agenda is to be fought, truth be damned.

So why did so many ‘sit by’ so long? My belief is that initially they accepted that their “peers” were doing a good job and being honest and unbiased. There was, after all, “consensus”. Then it just took some time for private doubts to be aired (and with the lock on publication there were few “pal reviewed” papers expressing doubt being heard…) and then largely in informal venues. THAT then started a “well, maybe I need to figure this out for myself” time lag. Eventually picking up some steam… Then ClimateGate happened and the “uninvolved” started to realize the game was rigged while the skeptics who were being suppressed from publication saw that they were political prisoners, not wrong. At that point the shift started.

From this point forward, more skeptical papers will be accepted and published (as those suppressed will simply privately publish as a thumb in the eye of censorship for political reasons) and editors that ‘tow the warmist line” will be under close scrutiny. That starts a virtuous cycle of doubt, eventually reaching truth. But it will take time.

I think also that the clear lack of warming (and significant cold events in some places) has got some folks deciding it’s time to leave a sinking ship…

@J Martin:

In the posting on trees and bamboo I basically worked out that, left to its own devices, the biosphere will very rapidly rate limit on CO2. Somewhere between a decade and a century. (depending on percent of planet surface and species involved. Ponds of algae being the fastest…)

I suspect that a significant part of our improved crop production is just from the added CO2 and that some of the truly dismal crop yields of the past historical reports were due to CO2 starvation. The existence of C4 plants pretty much says that the C3 metabolism wasn’t cutting it in low CO2 environments and plants needed a way to get by on less. It conferred an evolutionary advantage on grasses and let them ‘take over’ about 6 million years ago. If it had not been of advantage, it would not have been “developed’… and the only way it can be an advantage is if C3 metabolism was being run in a starvation range…

(This implies with higher CO2 levels we ought to see more shrubs and herbs beating grasses in marginal areas… which is good as I like shrubs and herbs more ;-)

@Adofo:

Maurice is now an honorary Chinese… He moved there some years ago. So wonder why he would want China exempt and the west hobbled by CO2 taxes… I’m sure it has nothing to do with his massive investments in China…

@Pascvaks:

Some folks are certain that THEY can make better decisions than others.
Some folks are certain that OTHERS can make better decisions than them (the ‘useful idiots’).
Some are just in it for the greed and power lust.
Some folks just want to belong to something bigger.

Very few folks want to be left on their own to fend for themselves.
Very few folks can accept that self organizing systems work.

That’s really all it takes to explain it. You can add more and make it more fancy, but there are simply: Judges, Jailers, Prisoners who like 3 meals a day and a clean bunk, and the folks selling goods to the prison. Add the occasional warden who lusts for power and The Good Citizens supporting putting all those bad folks under control, and you have “civilization”.

On the other side are some cranks who have a Pollyanna belief that everything will just automagically work and that bad people ought not to be controlled…

In that context, “those folks” can easily see that if the State Of California is good, and the USA is better, then the UN is just the tops as it gives those evil uncontrolled people no place to run…

Put more simply: Most folks WANT homeowners restrictions on everyone’s deeds, few folks want their neighbor free to work on broken cars in his driveway or put up a 3 story apartment block…

The problem comes when folks who lust for power and glory smell the opportunities presented by that system…

@George:

Perhaps the CO2 rise has something to do with the ocean currents picking up and increasing ocean ventilation in the warmer period… Oh, wait, I think I know where there is a posting about that ;-)

“Perhaps the CO2 rise has something to do with the ocean currents picking up and increasing ocean ventilation in the warmer period… Oh, wait, I think I know where there is a posting about that ;-)”

I do not remember seeing this pointed out, but consider this: Suppose that, yes, the current rise in CO2 is the natural 800 year bounce following from the MWP. Since the end of the MWP, the ocean currents were slowed and the deep ocean water was accumulating CO2 from natural sources. Now that CO2 is being released. Is it not true that those natural sources (CO2 “smokers” and CO2 seepage, both driven by gasses released from subduction and heating of carbonate minerals) should have carbon isotopes in the same proportion as fossil fuels?

The origin of the biosphere, natural expansion or agricultural activity doesn’t matter much.

Natural forests burn, managed forests as we see in Europe, Canada, the USA produce wood and support an ever increasing wild life population.
In Europe for example we stumble over wild boar and deer.
Forty years ago we took on wild watching and sit for day’s to see a single deer.
Today wild life like deer roam the agricultural lands next to the autobahn and you see them every day.
Berlin city parks have seen an invasion of wild life at a level where it became hazardous to enter the parks when the wild boar were nurturing their off spring.

After years of fishing restrictions the fishing industry this year saw it’s quota for haring, the basic fish stock in the North Sea doubled.
So have the numbers of brown fish (small dolphins) and seals that occupy the coasts of the Wadden Islands and the East Sea Islands.

Still we hear alarmist stories about dead oceans and disaster.

A country like the Netherlands, nothing more but a post stamp on the map has become one of the most populated area’s in the world with 17 million inhabitants, 10 million cars, one of the biggest harbors in the world and one of the biggest airports with over 40 million transit passengers every year. This country is also one of the biggest exporters of meat, milk, flowers, vegetables and other agricultural products.

Over 3,8 million cows, 11,2 million hogs and 90 million chicken, a total of over 100 million animals make up the feed stock. Almost every family has one or more cats and dogs and about half a million horses,

People also have no idea of the scale of out of control coal seam fires. Coal fires burning just in China release as much CO2 as all of the automobile and truck traffic in the entire USA. That is just China. Major coal fires also burn in India, Indonesia, and the US and in several other countries though the vast majority of such fires are in the four countries I listed.

We can make a huge, meaningful dent in atmospheric CO2 emissions by putting these fires out instead of running around trying to manage people’s lives for tiny reductions. If the UN were serious about CO2, they would be collecting a 100 billion dollar fund to put them out with international teams of engineers. That would have real, tangible, measurable results with no changes in policy/lifestyle required. But they don’t because this isn’t really about reducing CO2, it is about implementing global regulation of economic and development policy using CO2 as the lever. And if they actually reduce Co2 then the urgency of their policy recommendations goes away.

I don’t think we know. While I would expect it to be ‘fossil like’ due to age, there are just so many sources and so many possibles that it’s more of a crap shoot IMHO. Add in that all the fossil fuels are different from each other and it’s more a mess than a pattern. I would doubt it it would be dramatically different, but who knows.

@George:

Not to mention saving all that coal for the future…

BTW, I’ve pondered this a bit and one of the “issues” is that the coal is so hot that adding water does the ‘water gas’ reaction and you get flammable gas out ( CO + H2 ). Seems to me we need to just call it a feature. Collect the gas as it comes out and cool / pump it… Yeah, it would take a fair amount of rock / cement fill to make a plug in all the spots that were leaking to the surface, but if each one then becomes a fuel spout too… well, I think it would change the economics… Eventually you could over flood the water and quench it, but instead of saying “pumping in months of water costs too much and raises danger from flammable gas” (that usually burns and adds heat…) you would have “After a couple of years of profitable production the fire will be under control”.

But it’s easier to just ignore it and go to a new mine instead…

@R. de Haan:

The Netherlands are a nice existence proof for the world not being too crowded. For fun: Take the population of the Netherlands and divide it by the area. Take that density, and divide it into the global population (giving area needed). Compare to the size of the world…

Wiki says it’s 403 / km^2 and earth is 148,940,000 km^2 land area and about 7 B people

I make that 17,369,727 km^2 at Netherlands density, or 11% of the Earth LAND area (never mind what the Dutch could do with the coastal seabed ;-)

That is somewhat less than three Australias. Call it USA, Brazil, and Australia. The rest of the globe EMPTY of people.

Nobody in Asia, India, Europe, Africa, Canada, Mexico, Central America or South America outside of Brazil. All of Oceana outside of Australia just wild islands….

While it isn’t as practical (or for some of us as comfortable) as spreading out into The Big Empty, the point is still valid that most of the place is empty of people. (Drive to the Outback, or just cross Nebraska / Kansas ;-) don’t even need to mention Siberia or the Sahara or at sea or …)

The idea that the world is “full” is another one of those silly ideas that comes from math challenged people who live in New York and Paris high rise apartments and think that is the whole world…

BTW, if you do it at THAT density, we need even less land. Manhattan has a density of 27,394.3/km^2, so it’s 255,530 km^2 or a little bit bigger than the UK: 243,610 km^2. We could put the entire world population in the UK and Ireland if built out like Manhattan… Paris is at 20,980 /km^2 so would take 333,651 km^2 while France is 674,843 km^2. In other words, if we built out 1/2 of France as a Super Paris (with parkland between in the rest) we could evacuate ALL of the rest of the world.

Practical? Not at all… but next time someone tells you the world is running out of space ask them if they would think a life in Paris with a park just as big around it would be an “acceptable” lifestyle ;-)

Over the top? Well, Manila is 43,079/km^2 so we’re way down the list from most crowded city… Paris is 33rd on this list:

Thanks for your analysis E.M, I completely agree with your assessment that our current world population isn’t a problem at all in terms of land use and yes, the Netherlands is a good example that underlines this assessment.
Nature and high density population, agriculture, industry, all can be combined without any problems.

The biggest conflict the Dutch encountered with “nature” is when they closed down the landfills and started burning waste.
From that moment on the seagulls that lived from the landfills migrated into the cities.

The Green Marxists think humanity is jeopardizing the planet.
I think they are totally wrong as the world is looking better every day.
They fully underestimate the fact that “nature” adapts there is no risk of loss of bio-diversity in any way. They also have this weird perception of a stable climate and serene nature not touched by mankind where all animals live happily.

The reality is that our planet is a ruthless and violent place.
Human activities support wild life in way’s beyond our imagination.

Even here in the US I talk with people who seem to think that the country has no more room. Invariably, these people are ones who have spent pretty much all their lives in major urban areas (with perhaps an occasional trip to some other city via an Interstate Highway.)

I tell them, “just drive out into the country sometimes. If you are brave, get out of your car and take a walk!”

Every so often some urbanite discovers this the hard way. One I remember was an elderly couple with a motorhome. Had a breakdown in the Mojave. Eventually burned tires for ‘signals’. Did everything ‘by the book’. Still didn’t survive. A long time later someone found them dead… Yeah, that’s empty…

I have a cabin in the woods. Nearest neighbor is a guy who lives a mile away. Sometimes he is home, but not always. Next neighbor is three miles. There are bears and cougars, etc. When it is 3:00 a.m. and you decide to go stand outside to watch the stars…. the experience is very different than if you are close to town and watching the stars. There is always the little voice in your head which says “The world is big, very big, and you are very small. There are things which may, if you are not careful eat you.”

People who think and say, “There are too many people in the World; the Earth cannot sustain the present population and people are devestating the planet!”, almost always are leaving just a little something out. What they’re actually saying is, “There are too many of the wrong kind of people in the World; the Earth cannot sustain the present population of the right kind of people and these other filthy people are devestating the planet!”. They’re right too. I know the American Indians felt that way about all the @#%$!%$#@#$%^^&&# Europeans. I have a feeling the Chinese think that way about all the Europeans. I imagine all the Arabs think that way about all the Europeans. And I ain’t that crazy about them either. Just imagine the World without @#%$!%$#@#$%^^&&# Europeans. Is Sicily big enough to put them all there? Time to bring back the buffalo?

People will use any excuse to convince their own kind to put down all the other kinds. It’s one of the top ten laws of Human Dynamics.

Pascvaks (14:10:35) : Those sons and daughters of “mommy and daddy”, who never worked, think this way…like the ill fated “Al Baby”…Of course they hallucinate a lot of things, like being so big that our deeds make some effect on our planet…but, of course theirs DO: Their stink is unbearable!
I think technology makes possible now for man to return to the open and wide fields of nature, though the problem will be that all those lands have already been bought by “hedge funds”..they no longer belong to people but to bankers and to governments (the bankers too).

@Adolfo
Not to worry. They’ll be the first ones thrown overboard (or eaten) when things get dicey. Remember the ye Good Ol’ ‘Bell Curve’, it explains so much about people and what they’ll do in various situations.

About Bankers, so true, today we can get about as much interest on our money by putting it all back under the mattress.

Every so often some urbanite discovers this the hard way. One I remember was an elderly couple with a motorhome. Had a breakdown in the Mojave. Eventually burned tires for ‘signals’. Did everything ‘by the book’. Still didn’t survive. A long time later someone found them dead… Yeah, that’s empty…

I’ve walked miles in the forest and never seen another person”.

In the Netherlands a cyclist lost his way visiting a Park de Hooge Veluwe because the weather turned foggy.
He died from hypotheria half a mile from a GSM transmitter.

When I climbed a mountain iat the border with France and Spain a few years ago the weather turned cold and windy.
I am always prepared for such a situation carrying a wind jacket and a pair of trousers with me.
That afternoon 6 people died from hypothermia because they were only dressed in a t-shirt and shorts.

Some people are really clueless.

Today when I travel or do some mountain flying i always take a sat phone with me.
Even without a card you can contact an emergency number.
When I bought the phone a few years ago prices were quite steep but today you can have them for less than a hundred bucks when you score a second hand on e-bay.
For most types you can still buy the batteries.

It’s the best investment you can make if you go hiking in an area without cell phone coverage. Just check for the regional coverage to select a phone that connects to the available sat network.

Pascvaks (14:10:35) :
“People who think and say, “There are too many people in the World; the Earth cannot sustain the present population and people are devestating the planet!”, almost always are leaving just a little something out. What they’re actually saying is, “There are too many of the wrong kind of people in the World; the Earth cannot sustain the present population of the right kind of people and these other filthy people are devestating the planet!”. They’re right too. I know the American Indians felt that way about all the @#%$!%$#@#$%^^&&# Europeans. I have a feeling the Chinese think that way about all the Europeans. I imagine all the Arabs think that way about all the Europeans. And I ain’t that crazy about them either. Just imagine the World without @#%$!%$#@#$%^^&&# Europeans. Is Sicily big enough to put them all there? Time to bring back the buffalo?

People will use any excuse to convince their own kind to put down all the other kinds. It’s one of the top ten laws of Human Dynamics”.

What people think isn’t important.
It’s what governments think and how they make their policies.

@adolfogiurfa (14:33:10) :
“Pascvaks (14:10:35) : Those sons and daughters of “mommy and daddy”, who never worked, think this way…like the ill fated “Al Baby”…Of course they hallucinate a lot of things, like being so big that our deeds make some effect on our planet…but, of course theirs DO: Their stink is unbearable!
I think technology makes possible now for man to return to the open and wide fields of nature, though the problem will be that all those lands have already been bought by “hedge funds”..they no longer belong to people but to bankers and to governments (the bankers too).”

Nice assessment hitting the nail right on the head.

I really wondered why the Royal Families in Europe show such a support for the climate change doctrine.
The last speech made by Queen Beatrix was all about the climate.

The reality is that the Globalist will have their old feudal powers restored.
Both the Dutch and British Royal families own huge area’s of land.

They love to see their old powers restored even if it brings us back to the medieval ages.

And we are well on our way.
We just saw the Bill of Rights trashed and democratic powers taking a back seat.

The only politician who is in support of personal liberties and governance based on the Constitution has been declared unelectable by the establishment.

The two jokers who have been declared electable, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are crazy people in support of the Globalists and the war on energy.

@ Adolfogiurfa (18:29:15) :
Kissinger is a living fossil. He doesn’t care what anybody thinks.
Keeping the report locked up for all those years probably saved his life.

This said I still wonder how it is possible that people like John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar, remains his position in office without a public outcry is flabbergasting to me.

Especially after the recent scientific publication of a lab manipulated bird flu virus that has the potential to kill tens of millions of people and has been developed by a Dutch researcher with budget provided by the US Government.

Absolutely stunning incidents that blow over with no response from the general public, just like Obama scrapping the Bill of Rights.

It seems the people of the USA have turned in a flock of sheep ready to make the final walk to the slaughterhouse.

R.de Haan: That virus…OMG!, fortunately they don´t know that usually third world people have a better immune system than 1st.world people…
But why to kill the people who lend you money to keep dreaming in the already broken “american way of life”.

Well, It’s worth remembering that 1/2 the people have below average intelligence, so often self select out of the pool of folks who “ponder things”. ( A mistake, IMHO, as ‘the common man’ is often more correct than the intelligentsia who frequently believe their own BS too readily…)

Then you need to take out the 70% or so who just assume everything is fine and don’t bother with “depressing” things like news and politics. Being much happier only watching the football game and shopping for clothes.

Finally, the statistic escapes me at the moment, but there was some astounding percentage of the US population that are on some kind of anti-anxiety drug. You know, zoloft, valium, etc. IIRC is was around 1/3 and pushing 1/2 of adults.

At the end of the day you would be lucky to come up with 10% of the population who are: competent, interested, aware and looking all at the same time. And at least 1/2 of THEM are getting goodies from the other side so cheer it on…

Sorry to be such a wet blanket about it, but, well, that’s just how it is.

You will get public attention broadly focused only after it hits a lot of them personally and hard. IMHO, that is why we have the ‘collapse cycle’ as the normal end. The “powers that be” just keep pushing things (and no bad thing happens so they push more..) until it finally collapses (as brittle failure gives no warning): THEN the general public takes action…

Per The Memo:

A lot of folks believe the Club Of Rome tripe (they funded “Limits to Growth” by Meadows et.al. and started the whole ‘computer models to scare folks’ process). They like to ponder Grave Moral Issues just before they murder millions or condemn them to die via very stupid decisions.

I’ve been “on about this” since about 1973 or so. Maybe it’s time I wrote more than just the “no energy shortage” and “not running out of stuff” postings…

The sad truth, though, is that due to their insane belief that we have to fight over “stuff” (instead of seeing just how much there is), they WILL cause wars over it, they WILL support the abortion of millions (billions?) of souls, and eventually they WILL kill off billions one way or another. They will ‘destroy the global village in order to save it’, and feel smug in the process.

They also will NOT support policies that would avert the “problem” by bringing modernity to those same 3rd worlders who have growing populations. That would “compete with western interests”… in the battle for “scarce resources”.

To cure ‘the population problem’ you only need to assure that the poor and dispossessed of the world have a near certainty that their children will survive (as in the modern west), a decent job and living standard (as in the west), and the women have college educations. When that happens, population growth drops below replacement rates (as in the west)… Instead they thwart all those things, then fret over the expected outcome…

“Intelligence is limited, but stupidity knows no bounds. -E.M.Smith”

Even among nominally intelligent folks…

BTW, I expect the “culling” to start via a nuclear war in the Levant or North Korea (with Pakistan / Kashmir / India a distant 3rd). Second place goes to a natural disease evolving into the great niche we’ve given it. Honorable mention to direct human action with intent…

Despite the risk of folks choosing to cause a plague, I think nature will provide one all on it’s own. That’s been the historical record…

But this is straying far from oceans and CO2 at this point. Maybe I ought to put up a “4 horseman” posting ;-) (Famine, Plague, Pestilence, War)

EM –
Yes, I too believe CO2 levels are going to skyrocket to great heights, and ocean circulation patterns are going to change as well due to numerous bursts of manmade solar energy in the Northern Hemisphere; and natural plagues, eruptions, draughts, etc. will, as ever, pierce and maul the good ol’ human Bell Curve – forever and ever. Human nature is so much easier to predict than the weather. Think it has anything to do with our intimate proximity to the problem?

We know we are dealing with an absolute minority of self appointed elites and their enablers.
We have most of their names?

There must be a way to stop this circus.
What about publishing a blacklist in the form of a book describing the entire scam and their true intentions containing all the names, institutions, stake holders involved.
Just make public they are planning for a mass cull of the human population based on a religion instead of facts..
We have the ClimateGate data, we know the politicians, the banksters, the UN scam artists, we have the Kissinger report, the involvment of the media like the BBC, we have all the background research from Alex Jones and Co, just blacklist the entire lot and send them a copy and put the book on sale.

The US is Key here.

We just saw the Bill of Rights trashed and the time has come to do something substantial before SOPA will close down the Internet.

Call me a twit but I really think the USA needs a guy like Ron Paul right now.

He pledged the de-funding of the UN and the elimination of five Federal Departments and many more organizations like EPA.
And he will immediately restore the Bill of Rights.

Europe won’t go anywhere without the US.

If we can turn the tide in the USA we can stop this.

Just shooting a blank here, call it brainstorming.

Give the book a catchy title “Why your Government wants you dead” with a actual link to politics and current candidates from who we know they belong to the establishment. Just reveal the conspiray, how it functions, how it’s financed and why.

Delingpole just wrote the book WaterMelons but I think he doesn’t cover all of the scam. We need a big bible with names, the faces behind the names and scare the hell out of them. It’s a harsh approach but it’s better than a war if a book ever stopped a war. You have a good pen, you could do it with some help of your friends.

Don´t you worry my dear!…some of these guys, as you know, have elected to change residence to Shanghai, China…LOL!
“When God wants a man to lose himself, he makes him blind and deaf”: They don´t know chinese people, and neither indigenous americans, all people from old culture really, do not trust never, ever, ANYBODY, nobody, unless that somebody speaks or acts from its heart. They usually smile at you…even up to bow before you, but whenever they think you are not longer useful for them they just fart at you or….cut your head off.
And…that is the reason for changing the government there: Just to justify new policies which need to be implemented.
Just wait and see…and meanwhile…Buy more popcorn!

@adolfo,
I don’t worry and I have plenty of popcorn and cold beer.
I only think the apparachiks in the EU and the Obama Government have lost it.

Today I watched an Austrian documentary about Italians crossing the border to fuel up their cars. Gasoline and diesel are much cheaper in Austria and now the EU cut the oil steam from Iran (450 million barrel) the price difference further increased.

So here we see the EU cutting it’s own flesh.
In other words they lack rationality.
This is dangerous.

Chinese watch out for Chinese. They don’t ‘buy in’ to alien schemes, but will leaver off them for their own. I think they are playing the game very well and once they have the chips in China will ply the ‘benefactor’ with all the pleasures need to help him on his way to the inheritance “tax”… Some very rich folks don’t realize this.

@R. de Haan:

Perhaps such a book cold be useful, but I suspect something else will be needed.

What we have is essential a parasitism of the governments by an external agency. It is well funded and highly integrated into key governmental control points. It defends itself well.

So such a book would simply be propaganda painted into the quack corner and or ignored to death. Perhaps a small number of folks would benefit, but since a major blockbuster might sell a couple of million copies, and the operation is a global one with about 1 Billion folks between EU, USA, and FSU alone, it would have limited impact.

A leveraged solution is needed, and that has to come from the houses of government. Which implies to me that we need to have a more focused action for government officials (elected in the USA at least…) who then can do the leveraged effort of weeding out the parasitism. How to do THAT is a good question….

I suspect it will require a collapse of a smaller government somewhere under The Agenda, with the subsequent news getting folks focused.

Still, I’ll consider it…

Per folks ‘getting by’ despite stupid laws: It’s been that way forever. So it will continue to be. Pushed far enough the system collapses and resets. And what are we seeing in Italy and Greece?…

Well, every society is one of economists to some degree. The name (as I’m sure you know) just means “laws of the home”. ( so “home economics” is a bit redundant ;-)

The fundamental definition of Economics is just:

“Who, makes What, for Whom?”

Why is politics. When is business management. How is engineering ;-)

(Econ does get into “how much” a little bit, but that is linear programming that overlaps with business majors. It also covers some of the mechanism of how an economy works, so it has its own “how” that isn’t how the goods are made, but how it does “who, what, and whom”. To some extent Politics tries to cover ‘for whom” as well, but usually as an active attempt to be “whom” ;-)

So, did the Maya have a “who” and “what” and a “for whom”? Yup. So they were economists…

But what was the “what”? (No, I”m not pulling an ‘is is’…)

Largely for ancient societies the “what” is food and shelter. So weather changes are Numero Uno on the watch list. Shortly after that is ‘warfare’.

The Maya calendar has a lot about best times to negotiate peace, when wars were likely, and most importantly, when it would be extra wet or dry. To the extent that predicting farming / hunting / conquest performance is an economic act, it is all about economics…

(Banking and things like balance of trade settlements, while key to a nice job as an economist, are not central to what economics is, really.)

Honest! The old tablets we have from Mesopotamia et. al. are often just inventories of who had paid their tax and how much stuff folks had.. accounting records. Or trade receipts. Sad, really, when you think of all the other neat stuff they could have written down that would have been so much more interesting… Along with all that, came the need to ‘mark time’ to the next “special day”… I wonder what the Maya Glyph for “pay taxes now” looks like? ;-) But yes, the calendar is most likely a significant part ‘economic’…

@E.M. I just made the comment as your brain immediately goes to details. Really Mayans were well aware of the consequences, in their agrarian economy, of the El Niño phenomenon, including La Niña, which in times of Solar minimums causes drought in central America, Argentina and Chile, while it rains a lot in Bolivia and from -10 to -18 latitude along the central andes…you´ll see it in the news in the following weeks (of course it will take by surprise “new age scientists” and authorities).
Just watch these three pictures, taken today at 8 am (ET) (-12ºS, 75ºW):

[ Guess those flooded streets are part of the “water shortage” that’s supposed to be such a global issue…. ;-) -E.M.Smith]

Postings By Date

Prior Months; postings by date

Meta

To Donate via Paypal or Credit card

Paypal Donation Site.
To make a donation, visit Paypal at the link above and put in the email address pub4all @ aol (DOT) com (leaving out the gratuitous blanks and putting in a "." for (DOT) that is in the text here to defeat spam bots). Many thanks to all!